Depreciation is allowable under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on acquired brand names and marketing and distribution networks where they constitute business or commercial rights of similar nature. Such assets fall within the statutory category of depreciable intangible assets, alongside specified rights such as trade marks, licences and franchises. Where included in the opening written-down value of the relevant block of assets, the acquired brand name and marketing and distribution network qualify for depreciation.

TDS credit must be granted where the deductee establishes that tax was actually deducted, even if the deductor failed to deposit it or file TDS statements. Sections 199 and 205 require harmonious construction: the deductee is protected from double taxation and cannot be made liable for obligations beyond their control, while recovery action remains available against the defaulting deductor. Form 16 or Form 16A is not the exclusive proof of deduction; salary records, bank statements, payment documents, ledgers, payer confirmations and other contemporaneous evidence may establish a prima facie claim. The Department must verify such evidence and keep mismatch demands non-prejudicial during verification.

Appellate jurisdiction over a Tribunal order lies with the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer who made the assessment order. The assessee's location and any subsequent centralisation of the assessment do not change that jurisdiction. Where the assessment order was made by an Assessing Officer outside the High Court's territorial limits, the appeal is not maintainable before that High Court and must be filed before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.

Consideration from sale of software licences to non-residents, where no right or interest in the copyright is transferred, is not royalty taxable in India. Such payments do not require tax deduction at source. The position was consistent with the principle applied in earlier proceedings involving the same taxpayer.

Reassessment initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year requires fresh tangible material and a demonstrated failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Re-examining balance-sheet, profit-and-loss and land-sale particulars already furnished and considered in the original scrutiny assessment is merely a change of opinion. Where the recorded reasons rely only on such existing material and identify no disclosure failure, reopening under Section 147 lacks jurisdiction and the reassessment is invalid.

Selection of the Most Appropriate Method for transfer-pricing benchmarking, including preference for the Transactional Net Margin Method over the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, is generally a factual determination. Intervention under section 260A is not warranted merely because of differing views on method selection or related economic and pricing adjustments, unless findings are perverse or conflict with Rules 10B and 10C. Where documentary material supports the factual findings, consequential transfer-pricing adjustments remain incidental to the method-selection issue and do not independently raise a substantial question of law.

Sufficient cause under the Limitation Act may justify condonation of administrative delay where the explanation demonstrates bona fide scrutiny, internal opinions and approvals, document collection, settlement of the appeal memorandum, and filing approval. A justice-oriented, pragmatic approach focuses on the adequacy of the explanation rather than the duration of delay. In the absence of mala fides or factual inaccuracy, handwritten dates in a condonation application do not alone establish a mechanical or stereotyped explanation. The delay in filing the Revenue's appeal was therefore treated as sufficiently and bona fide explained and condoned.

Section 153C requires the satisfaction note and consequential notice to be issued immediately after the searched person's assessment proceedings. A ten-month interval between completion of those proceedings and issuance of the satisfaction notes and notices was not a reasonable time. On identical facts involving the same assessee for other assessment years, the binding determination governed the position. The delayed Section 153C notices were therefore time-barred and invalid.

Transfer and centralisation under Section 127 require a subsisting administrative or investigative purpose. Where the transfer of an assessee's case to Nashik was justified by coordinated investigation with a searched person, completion of that person's assessment before issuance of the transfer orders removed the stated basis for centralisation. With no remaining reason to shift the case from Mumbai, the transfer orders were quashed and the assessee's assessment was required to proceed under the appropriate Mumbai charge.

Fees received for live transmission or live feeds of cricket matches are characterised as royalty receipts where the service generating the income falls within Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi). The central legal distinction concerns copyright and broadcast rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in light of the order in Deputy Director of Income Tax International Taxation v. Shine Satellite Public Company Ltd.

Special leave petition challenging an assessment under search-related provisions and an addition for unexplained credits was dismissed after a 902-day filing delay. The reasons for condonation were held insufficient. The issues were also treated as governed by the Supreme Court's earlier Abhisar Buildwell principle, leading to dismissal on merits. The filing was criticised as unnecessary because the Department itself accepted that the dispute was already covered by binding precedent, thereby adding to judicial pendency.

Raw and unprocessed Psyllium (Isabgol) seeds are classified under tariff sub-heading 1211 90 13, which specifically covers Psyllium seeds and aligns with the relevant Chapter and HSN Notes for plant seeds used primarily in pharmacy. Nil-rate treatment for goods under heading 1211 applies only where the seeds are supplied fresh or chilled. Seeds kept in dry and ventilated godowns, without evidence of immediate post-harvest supply or storage duration, are treated as dried at the time of supply. Such dried seeds fall outside the fresh-produce exemption and are taxable at 5% under the entry applicable to frozen or dried goods. Exemption eligibility depends on the goods' condition when supplied.

Section 107 of the GST law prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal, with a further one-month period permitted for delayed presentation. Although the statutory appeal was filed beyond both periods, the claimed provision of exempt services required factual adjudication. The appeal was restored for adjudication in accordance with law, with all merits contentions remaining open.

Regular bail was considered in a GST-evasion prosecution involving transportation of goods without invoices and e-way bills. The accused was described as a transporter rather than a manufacturer or supplier, and no GST liability attributable to him had been computed or determined. With the charge sheet filed, continued custody, and an expected delay in trial, these circumstances supported release on regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, without addressing the merits of the prosecution.

Deferred annuity payments under road concession agreements constitute consideration for taxable works-contract services involving design, construction, operation and maintenance of roads. The access-to-road or bridge exemption applies only to services classified as access services and does not extend to road-construction services merely because payment is deferred through annuities. The GST circular validly clarifies this classification without amending or restricting the exemption notification. An earlier advance ruling granting exemption does not prevent GST levy where it misread the applicable provisions and the contractual services are properly characterised as taxable works-contract services.

GST registration cancellation for continuous return default remains valid where the notice identifies the default, no reply is filed, and the effective cancellation date falls within rather than before the default period. Section 29 requires notice of proposed cancellation and an opportunity of hearing, not a separate notice for the consequential effective date. Statutory appellate limitation cannot ordinarily be bypassed through writ jurisdiction after the maximum condonable period expires. Relief may arise only for exceptional jurisdictional defects or complete denial of natural justice; none was established. Earlier inconsistent coordinate-bench views were treated as per incuriam. The cancellation and refusal to entertain the belated appeal therefore remain effective.

GST registration cancellation appeals may be reopened through writ jurisdiction where the statutory appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the prescribed outer limit, the delay is plausibly explained, and refusal would cause disproportionate hardship. Cancellation can seriously affect business operations. Merits, including valid service of notice and compliance with natural justice, remain for determination by the Appellate Authority. The appeal should receive merits consideration rather than be rejected solely as time-barred.

Pending replies to show-cause notices proposing cancellation of GST registration require prompt consideration by the tax authorities. Where the request is limited to an early decision on an already filed reply, the underlying allegations supporting proposed cancellation remain undecided. The authorities were directed to consider and decide the reply expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

Restoration of a statutory GST appeal against cancellation of registration was addressed through a High Court precedent. The writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as that precedent, reopening the appellate remedy. The appeal is to be considered on its merits rather than dismissed as time-barred.

GST registration may be cancelled for failure to furnish returns for the stipulated continuous period after an opportunity of hearing. Cancellation taking effect from a date within the period of default is not retrospective in the strict sense; however, an earlier effective date requires objective, valid reasons. A separate notice on the effective cancellation date is unnecessary where notice of the underlying non-compliances has been issued. GST appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the statutory maximum period. Writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily bypass that limitation, except in exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction or a complete breach of natural justice.